Appeal No. 2003-1498
Application No. 09/762,000
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner
in the § 102 and § 103 rejections before us:
Jones 5,588,316 Dec. 31, 1996
Nachbauer 5,927,111 July 27, 1999
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claims 1, 5, 6 and 9 stand rejected
as being anticipated by Nachbauer and claims 1, 2, 4 and 9 stand
rejected as being anticipated by Jones.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 3, 7, 8 and 10-20 stand
rejected as being obvious over Nachbauer and Jones.
We refer to the brief and the answer for a complete exposition
of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the Appellants and by the
Examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
None of the rejections advanced by the Examiner on this appeal
can be sustained.
As correctly argued by the Appellants and implicitly
recognized by the Examiner, neither Nachbauer nor Jones contains
any teaching or suggestion that the respective faucet locks thereof
are for use with a lavatory sink faucet having at least one water
valve wrist blade control handle and concomitantly that these prior
art faucet locks are capable of regulating the degree of freedom of
rotation of a wrist blade control handle as recited in appealed
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007